Ο ευρυμαθής και πολύγλωσσος φίλος του ιστολογίου μας ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΨΕΛΛΟΣ, μετέφρασε στα γαλλικά, εξ ιδίας φιλοτιμίας και προαιρέσεως, το πρόσφατο κείμενό μας προς τον Μητροπολίτη Ζαπορόζιε Λουκά, της Εκκλησίας της Ουκρανίας που υπάγεται στο Πατριαρχείο Μόσχας.
Δημοσιεύουμε στη συνέχεια μία ακόμα μετάφραση του, στα αγγλικά αυτή τη φορά, για την οποία ιδιαιτέρως τον ευχαριστούμε, επίσης.
Πρόκειται για το κείμενό μας Ο ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΟΣ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΣΤΟ ΜΟΣΧΑΣ ΑΛΕΞΙΟ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΥΠΕΡΟΡΙΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΔΟΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΟΥ ΘΡΟΝΟΥ
Ακολουθεί η μετάφραση στα αγγλικά.
Ακολουθεί η μετάφραση στα αγγλικά.
A letter signed by His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st to His Beatitude Patriarch
Alexios 1st of Moscow has been lately republished.
This letter refers to the excommunication of
Metropolitan Philaretos of Kiev and is being used as a reference document to prove that His
Holiness was in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow regarding the excommunication of
Metropolitan Philaretos of Kiev.
Let us, if you please, consider the aforementioned letter per et in se:
1. Metropolitan Philaretos was ordained by the Church of Moscow and the relative clerics, and,
whether rightfully or not, was subsequently excommunicated by the same instances. In the
aforementioned letter, this procedure was recognised as legal and tender by His Holiness
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st.
2. When this letter got written and sent out, His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st did
not have, as of then, the appeal request against the excommunication by Metropolitan Philaretos in
order for Him to rule the case. The case rested at that level according to Orthodox Canonical Law.
3. On the one hand, the issue of the Ukrainian Church gives a solution to the rightful appeal case of
Metropolitan Philaretos. On the other, it considers lifting the decision of Ecumenical Patriarch
Dionysios 4th which gave, rightfully or unjustly, the canonical right to the Patriarch of Moscow to
elect and ordain whomever for as long as the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch is invoked. This
situation – instituted under Turkish rule – changed through the latest decision of the Patriarchal Holy
Synod. Whatever was the canon prior to 1686 legally applies henceforth. Therefore, as the case of
Metropolitan Sylvester of Kiev in 1649 shows, the Metropolitans of Kiev were and henceforth are
elected and ordained by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Holy Church of Saint George at the
Phanarion of Constantinople.
4. It is needless to mention the hundreds of appeal cases brought forth by local patriarchs,
metropolitans and other clerics if not usual Orthodox Christians before the Throne of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate for a ruling, as this actively and canonically proves the unity of Orthodoxy
before the Ecumenical Throne. The letter invoked by the Moscow clerics does no more than
recognise the legal right of the Church of Moscow; it does not supersede the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to accept, admit and rule an appeal case.
His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch’s letter (11/07/1995) to Moscow has been translated and
published in the English language. It shows that the jurisdiction and rights of all incumbents have
been at all times taken into account. This letter proves that canonical law has been unequivocally
respected. But it also shows the tragic situation in which the Moscow Patriarchate finds itself due to
the fact that the Moscow hierarchy fails to comprehend the ecumenical duties and central position
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Orthodox World.
Tis surely high time for the Moscow Patriarchate to behave according to the Great Orthodox
Traditions and Canons! (N.B.: autocephaly is the absolute and exclusive right of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople; Canons 9, 17 et 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council)
Alexios 1st of Moscow has been lately republished.
This letter refers to the excommunication of
Metropolitan Philaretos of Kiev and is being used as a reference document to prove that His
Holiness was in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow regarding the excommunication of
Metropolitan Philaretos of Kiev.
Let us, if you please, consider the aforementioned letter per et in se:
1. Metropolitan Philaretos was ordained by the Church of Moscow and the relative clerics, and,
whether rightfully or not, was subsequently excommunicated by the same instances. In the
aforementioned letter, this procedure was recognised as legal and tender by His Holiness
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st.
2. When this letter got written and sent out, His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st did
not have, as of then, the appeal request against the excommunication by Metropolitan Philaretos in
order for Him to rule the case. The case rested at that level according to Orthodox Canonical Law.
3. On the one hand, the issue of the Ukrainian Church gives a solution to the rightful appeal case of
Metropolitan Philaretos. On the other, it considers lifting the decision of Ecumenical Patriarch
Dionysios 4th which gave, rightfully or unjustly, the canonical right to the Patriarch of Moscow to
elect and ordain whomever for as long as the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch is invoked. This
situation – instituted under Turkish rule – changed through the latest decision of the Patriarchal Holy
Synod. Whatever was the canon prior to 1686 legally applies henceforth. Therefore, as the case of
Metropolitan Sylvester of Kiev in 1649 shows, the Metropolitans of Kiev were and henceforth are
elected and ordained by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Holy Church of Saint George at the
Phanarion of Constantinople.
4. It is needless to mention the hundreds of appeal cases brought forth by local patriarchs,
metropolitans and other clerics if not usual Orthodox Christians before the Throne of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate for a ruling, as this actively and canonically proves the unity of Orthodoxy
before the Ecumenical Throne. The letter invoked by the Moscow clerics does no more than
recognise the legal right of the Church of Moscow; it does not supersede the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to accept, admit and rule an appeal case.
His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch’s letter (11/07/1995) to Moscow has been translated and
published in the English language. It shows that the jurisdiction and rights of all incumbents have
been at all times taken into account. This letter proves that canonical law has been unequivocally
respected. But it also shows the tragic situation in which the Moscow Patriarchate finds itself due to
the fact that the Moscow hierarchy fails to comprehend the ecumenical duties and central position
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Orthodox World.
Tis surely high time for the Moscow Patriarchate to behave according to the Great Orthodox
Traditions and Canons! (N.B.: autocephaly is the absolute and exclusive right of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople; Canons 9, 17 et 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council)
By Panagiotis Ant. Andriopoulos ΦΩΣ ΦΑΝΑΡΙΟΥ
(fanarion.blogspot.com)
Translated into the English language by ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΨΕΛΛΟΣ
Reply From Patriarch Bartho… by on Scribd
